No doubt everyone is eagerly contemplating the guidance on submissions and panel criteria for the research excellence framework, which are currently under consultation. These documents include details of the new measures in place to support the submission and assessment of interdisciplinary research (IDR).
I hope that the interdisciplinary advisory panel (or IDAP, which I chair) has been able to make good progress in establishing processes that act to ensure that the interdisciplinary research is properly assessed, thereby giving the community – and the leaders of universities and institutions making decisions about submissions – reassurance and confidence that there is no risk in submitting outputs of this type.
Our key aim in IDAP in providing this advice has been to give greater confidence to institutions and researchers alike that interdisciplinary research will be treated fairly, thereby encouraging its submission.
Here I would like to spell out our proposals for IDR assessment as set out within the guidance and criteria, in particular the definition of interdisciplinary research and guidance on the assessment criteria.
IDAP advised on a number of measures to achieve fair assessment: building IDR expertise into the panel structures at all levels; developing an IDR advisory network and collaborative working practices; and giving greater guidance to institutions and panels, respectively, on identifying and assessing IDR outputs. A key requirement was agreeing on a definition of IDR for the REF to guide institutions about when to flag outputs as IDR.
This definition is now set out in the draft guidance as: “For the purposes of the REF, interdisciplinary research is understood to achieve outcomes (including new approaches) that could not be achieved within the framework of a single discipline.
“Interdisciplinary research features significant interaction between two or more disciplines and/or moves beyond established disciplinary foundations in applying or integrating research approaches from other disciplines.”
While developing a definition of IDR for the purposes of the REF was a challenging task (as I?always knew it would be as soon as I?was invited to take on the role of chair), in view of the multiple and diverse ways in which this term is used and understood by different communities, we felt that an explicit definition would best enable the IDR flag to be used.
Our approach has been to develop a definition that is REF-specific, broad and encompassing; emphasising disciplinary interaction within the research, without narrowly defining what or how this is achieved.
One key point that it is important to underline, however, is the distinction between flagging an output as IDR and the process for cross-referring outputs to other subpanels for advice. Flagging an output as IDR will bring that output within the oversight of the subpanel’s IDR advisers, who will take a key role in advising the subpanel on the most appropriate assessment approach for the output. Cross-referral will operate as in the last REF.
Another key measure that we felt would give greater confidence about IDR assessment in the REF is the provision of additional guidance on how the assessment criteria for outputs (originality, significance and rigour) should be applied for IDR outputs.
There were challenges in setting meaningful guidelines for the generic criteria without overly singling out or indicating different assessment standards for one category of research to achieve over others.
However, we consider that the guidance set out strikes this balance and gives a clear message that originality and significance can be identified in one or more aspects of the IDR output, and/or in the outcomes of the integration of different disciplines, even where some of the individual discipline input is more routine.
This, to my mind, is crucial. How often – at grant-giving panels, for instance – does one hear the charge “but part of this research is not cutting-edge” levelled against IDR? It’s a criticism that then condemns the application to failure. It is crucial that we recognise that the synergy of different strands may be wholly novel and exciting even if some of the ingredients are not.
We are keen to understand if the measures as set out will achieve our aim of increasing institutions’ confidence to submit IDR outputs in REF 2021 and, if not, what further steps we can take.
The consultation is open until 15?October, and we welcome your comments.
Dame Athene Donald is a professor of experimental physics at the University of Cambridge and chair of the research excellence framework interdisciplinary research advisory panel.